Saikia. J.:- The writ petitioner impugns the orders dated 23.9.83 and 30.9.83 of the Governor of Manipur issued by the Secretary to the Government of Manipur, Fishery Department under Memo No. 13/125/77-FY whereby the Governor of Manipur was pleased to order that the Kharungpat Fishery No. 164 situated at Laipham Pana, Thoubal Sub-Division, District Thouba), Manipur be leased out in favour of the Kharungpat Fishery-cum-Pisciculture Farming Co-operative Society Limited (Respon­dent No. 2) on payment of Rs. 1,60,000/- per year for a period of three years commencing from 23.9.83 to 31.3.86 for fishing and pisciculture development. By the order dated 30.9.83 the Governor of Manipur was pleased to accord sanction to the grant of the above lease. 2. The petitioner's case is that he was the sitting lessee of the same fishery during the previous term and he applied for extension, which was not considered. It is stated that the fishery was then notified for sale by auction and the petitioner even deposited the earnest money; but the auction sale was cancelled and subsequently the Government has directly settled the fishery with the respondent No. 2 under Rule 25 of the Manipur Fishery Rules, 1972, shortly 'the Rules'. The petitioner's grievances are that no reasons have been recorded in the impu­gned order as to why direct settlement had to be resorted to; that there was no notification to the effect that the fishery would be directly settled; and that there was no offer whatsoever from the respondent No. 2 for settlement of the fishery. 3. The learned Advocate Generel, Manipur submits that the petitioner is to be estopped from questioning the impugned settlement, inasmuch he himself applied for direct settlement fender Rule 25 vide Annexures A/2, A/7, A/8 and A/11 to the petition, which fact has also been state in para 25 of the counter affidavit. The learned Advocate General relied on Dr. G. Sarma vs. University of Lucknow, AIR 1976 SC 2428 ; Dr. Nagaraj vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 1977 SC 876 ; and I. L. Honnegouda vs. The State of Karnataka, AIR 1978 SC 28 ; In G. Sarma (supra) the appellant knew all the relevant facts and volun­tarily appeared at the interview before the Selection Committee without even raising his little finger against its constitution. Nagaraj vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 1977 SC 876 ; and I. L. Honnegouda vs. The State of Karnataka, AIR 1978 SC 28 ; In G. Sarma (supra) the appellant knew all the relevant facts and volun­tarily appeared at the interview before the Selection Committee without even raising his little finger against its constitution. Having failed to obtain a favourable recommendation from it, it was held that it was not open to him to turn round and question the constitution of the Committee. This view gained strength from the decision of the Supreme Court in Manak Lal's case ( AIR 1957 SC 425 ) wherein under more or less similar circumstances, it was held that the failure of the appellant to take the identical plea at the earlier stage of the procee­dings created an effective bar of waiver against him. In D. Nagaraj ( supra) and I. L. Honnegouda (supra) it was held that the fact that the appellant acquiesced to the 1970 Rules by applying for the post of the Village Accountant, appearing before the Recruitment Committee for interview in 1972 and 1974 and taking chance of being selected, the appeal which questioned the constitutionality of Rules 4 and 5 of the 1970 Rules could not be allowed. Applying the above principles, the petitioner in this case must be held to have acquiesced to the direct settlement of the fishery and to have waived the right to object to it. He can object only if there is violation of Rule 25 of the Rules or there is discrimination in the matter of direct settlement 4. Rule 25 of the Rules provides : "Government fisheries shall be sold by public auction. Provided that the Administrator may, in individual cases, direct any other mode for sale or settlement of fisheries and specify the period thereof in special cases for reasons to be recorded in writing." 5. As regards the first grievance of the petitioner, namely, no reason has been recorded, the petitioner admits that he did not file any application before the State Government to inform him about the reasons for resorting to direct settlement. However, from Annexure R/1 to the counter affidavit it is apparent that the fishery has been directly settled with respondent No. 2 after recording reasons which run as follows : "The Knarungpat Fisbery-Cum-Pisculture Farming Co-op. Society Ltd. was registered as a Co-op. However, from Annexure R/1 to the counter affidavit it is apparent that the fishery has been directly settled with respondent No. 2 after recording reasons which run as follows : "The Knarungpat Fisbery-Cum-Pisculture Farming Co-op. Society Ltd. was registered as a Co-op. Seciety with the aim and object of enjoying and development of Fy. No. 164-Kharungpat by the genuine fishermen of the surroun­ding villages. The Society had suffered losses because of protacted litigations. They have cleared the arrear revenue dues for the previous lease terms after the matter was fully discussed and decided in the Cabinet. The Fy. No. 164-Kbarungpat was leased cut on public auction in the previous leased term i. e. 1980-83 at Rs. 1,50,000/- per annum. In view of the above facts and as an encouragement to the Co-operative movement, the Fy. No. 164 Kharungpat may not be put to public auction for the lease term 1983-86 but be sold and settled with the Kharungpat Fishing-cum-Pisciculture Farming Co-operative Society Ltd, Wabgai at Rs. 1,60,000/- per annum that is at an incre­ased amount of Rs. 10,000/- over the previous lease amount of Rs. 1.50,000/- per annum as a special case for the lease term of 1984-86 under rule No. 25 of the Manipur Fishery Rules, 1972." From the above Annexure R/1 it cannot be said that no rea­sons have been recorded. Moreover the Annexure R/1, which contains the reasons, is dated 21.9.83 and the settlement was made on 23.9.83. This means that the reasons existed for resor­ting to direct settlement on the date when the settlement was made. Thus, there was no illegality in assuming jurisdiction under Rule 25 of the Rules. 6. The petitioner's next grievance is that there was no notification for direct settlement of the fishery; but be has not been in a position to show us any rule under which the State Government is required to versus any such notification. Beside the petitioner himself applied for direct settlement and, as such, he was is no way prejudiced by non-issuance of any such noti­fication. The reasons recorded also show that the petitioner's application was rejected after consideration. It cannot, there­fore, be the grievance of the petitioner that his offer was not considered. 7. Mr. Th. Priyananda Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner's offer was Rs. 1, Rs. The reasons recorded also show that the petitioner's application was rejected after consideration. It cannot, there­fore, be the grievance of the petitioner that his offer was not considered. 7. Mr. Th. Priyananda Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner's offer was Rs. 1, Rs. 165,000/- whereas the respondent No. 2 has been settled at Rs.1,60,000/-, which means Rs. 5000/- less than the petitioner's offer. This difference of Rs. 5,000/-, in our opinion, is immaterial in view of the facts that the settlement has been made with a Co-operative Society formed by the genuine fishermen of the surrounding village with a view to encourage the co-operative movement. It cannot, be said that there was any discrimination in this regard. 8. The petitioner's next grievance is that the respondent No. 2 was picked up and chosen there having been no appli­cation from it for settlement. The learned Advocate General has placed before us the records wherein we find sufficient materials of the respondent No. 2 having applied for direct settlement and also having offered Rs. 1, 60,000/- per annum. In view of these materials on record, the petitioner cannot make any reasonable grievance that the respondent No. 2 did not make any applica­tion for settlement. 9. No other point has been urged before us. In the result we find the petition to be without merit and as such it is rejected. The Rule is discharged. The stay order dated 2.12.83 passed in Civil Misc. Case No. 202 of 1983 stands vacated. We, however, make no order as to costs.